Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.

The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.

So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.

To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.

Or consider this:

"To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager's speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!"

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.

Or this:

"The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Light reaching us from the earliest known galaxies has been traveling, therefore, for more than 13 billion years. So one might assume that the radius of the universe is 13.7 billion light-years and that the whole shebang is double that, or 27.4 billion light-years wide."

For all practical purposes, it is beyond the imagination of mere mortals here on planet Earth to grasp just how staggeringly immense the universe is.

As for situating "I" in all of this...?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.

The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.

So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.

To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.

Or consider this:

"To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager's speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!"

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.

Or this:

"The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Light reaching us from the earliest known galaxies has been traveling, therefore, for more than 13 billion years. So one might assume that the radius of the universe is 13.7 billion light-years and that the whole shebang is double that, or 27.4 billion light-years wide."

For all practical purposes, it is beyond the imagination of mere mortals here on planet Earth to grasp just how staggeringly immense the universe is.

As for situating "I" in all of this...?

And yet a preconceptual ever present God can transcend that almost in immediacy, even if multiple universes exist. God could appear by not even moving from one place to another in a timeless, eternal immediacy as well. Mankind and his currently primitive science has seen nothing yet, only possibly a percent if what may yet to be revealed.

In time travel, the quantum jumps in Star wars and Other sci fi films, imagination hints at such future developments..

The ant sees and experiences its short life totally constructed in very different ways. Mankind is an ant in that aspect. nut the difference is notable that.man has more often identifiable features with a mirrored and developing image of himself, with only an absolute sense of a super man God as his final destination Perhaps we are but seedlings planted here by a very much superior race of early visitors who were mearly passing by..

Meno_ wrote: And yet a preconceptual ever present God can transcend that almost in immediacy, even if multiple universes exist. God could appear by not even moving from one place to another in a timeless, eternal immediacy as well

Not only that but after you die this God then assures you immortality in paradise. Providing of course you don't displease Him on this side of the grave.

Meno_ wrote:Mankind and his currently primitive science has seen nothing yet, only possibly a percent if what may yet to be revealed.

True, there's no getting around that.

Meno_ wrote: In time travel, the quantum jumps in Star wars and Other sci fi films, imagination hints at such future developments..

Well, that's a scripted reality. And then there's the part where "I" has to be around when these future developments unfold.

Meno_ wrote: The ant sees and experiences its short life totally constructed in very different ways. Mankind is an ant in that aspect.

An ant capable of contemplating his or her "place" in the vastness of all there is.

Meno_ wrote: Perhaps we are but seedlings planted here by a very much superior race of early visitors who were mearly passing by..

Or perhaps the strangeness of the whole truth here exceeds anything that anyone of us can even imagine.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Meno_ wrote:Or perhaps the strangeness of the whole truth here exceeds anything that anyone of us can even imagine.

There's a forest somewhere, and in that forest there's a tree. The tree has branches, the branches have leaves, and on one of those leaves, there is a caterpillar. That caterpillar has a theory of the world. It knows night and day, it knows food and non-food, it knows hot from cold, friend from foe. To the limit of its central nervous system and primitive brain structure, it has an idea of the totality of existence. It will someday transcend its own existence to become glorious, beautiful new creature. I wonder if the caterpillar has a sense of the butterfly.

I believe we're the same. We have our theories that are a product of the brains we have. We probably don't have the last word in brains ... after all if there are so many creatures with less brainpower than us ... by analogy, there must be more levels upward.

The true, ultimate world, if there even is such a thing, must be vastly different than what we can imagine. That's my own belief. That we're smart caterpillars. We have the best understanding we can have, given our neurons. We don't know the truth and we could never even imagine it.

Meno_ wrote:Or perhaps the strangeness of the whole truth here exceeds anything that anyone of us can even imagine.

There's a forest somewhere, and in that forest there's a tree. The tree has branches, the branches have leaves, and on one of those leaves, there is a caterpillar. That caterpillar has a theory of the world. It knows night and day, it knows food and non-food, it knows hot from cold, friend from foe. To the limit of its central nervous system and primitive brain structure, it has an idea of the totality of existence. It will someday transcend its own existence to become glorious, beautiful new creature. I wonder if the caterpillar has a sense of the butterfly.

Well, I suppose this is possible given the gap between what any particular one of us thinks we know about what goes on inside the caterpillars head, and all that can be known about it.

But I suspect that no caterpillars will ever become members of ILP and contribute to this thread.

wtf wrote: I believe we're the same. We have our theories that are a product of the brains we have. We probably don't have the last word in brains ... after all if there are so many creatures with less brainpower than us ... by analogy, there must be more levels upward.

Then it comes down to those alien creatures being able to tackle the immensity of the universe as Captain Kirk did. Or as folks like Carl Sagan imagined the future might be "theoretically". Wormhole technology for example.

wtf wrote: The true, ultimate world, if there even is such a thing, must be vastly different than what we can imagine. That's my own belief. That we're smart caterpillars. We have the best understanding we can have, given our neurons. We don't know the truth and we could never even imagine it.

Yeah, that seems reasonable to me.

Unless, of course, in a determined universe, we have just evolved from caterpillars wholly in sync [like they are] with what can only ever be.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:For all practical purposes, it is beyond the imagination of mere mortals here on planet Earth to grasp just how staggeringly immense the universe is.

Not sure there's much of a need to. Just a few professionals who might need to.

It's not a question of needing to. It is a simple fact that the evolution of life on earth has culminated in human brains that are capable of thinking about things like this.

Among other things [for some] it is fascinating stuff.

As to why particular individuals are more or less likely to be fascinated by it, that's embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

Clearly, in not needing to fascinated by it, I would never argue that one ought to be.

After all, there are things we really do need to focus our attention on. Like sustaining our existence from day to day. Or, for most of us, paying the bills.

Exactly, more or less my poorly communicated point in my response above. It will not help with practical issues and I can't imagine how it would help getting out of a hole. It could serve to make one feel limited - now about specific inability to comprehend something - or it could be used to make one feel small - whatever that would mean when connected to feelings or ideas of meaning in one's life. Elsewhere, I think, in one of your posts such imaginings of how big it all is and how small and limited we are seemed part of a counter-contraption. Like some people think we are so special and meaningful and you want to point out that we are actually small and can't imagine things. I can't see much use for that contraption, unless one wants certain specific people to stop being so full of themselves, if that's what one judges and further thinks this physical smallness in some way chips away at meaning.

'Consider...' says the title of the thread.

What makes this a good thing to consider?

'I find this fascinating...'

That's different. Is there some reason you think we need to or should consider this vastness that we cannot really consider?

It's not a question of needing to. It is a simple fact that the evolution of life on earth has culminated in human brains that are capable of thinking about things like this.

Among other things [for some] it is fascinating stuff.

As to why particular individuals are more or less likely to be fascinated by it, that's embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

Clearly, in not needing to fascinated by it, I would never argue that one ought to be.

After all, there are things we really do need to focus our attention on. Like sustaining our existence from day to day. Or, for most of us, paying the bills.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Exactly, more or less my poorly communicated point in my response above. It will not help with practical issues and I can't imagine how it would help getting out of a hole.

Still, when you think about it, there are any number of human behaviors revolving around things that, over the course of living one's life, are not necessary to sustain one's existence. Instead you embrace them simply because [for whatever reason] they have become a part of what appeals to you or interests you as an individual: sports, the arts, hobbies etc.

My point is that these things -- which I call "distractions" -- are around precisely in order to take my mind away from the hole I'm in.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: It could serve to make one feel limited - now about specific inability to comprehend something - or it could be used to make one feel small - whatever that would mean when connected to feelings or ideas of meaning in one's life.

True. And from my frame of mind these various reactions are no less existential contraptions --- as I understand the meaning of dasein as a component of ones identity, ones sense of self. And, thus, that there does not appear to be a way in which any particular reaction can be embraced as one that reasonable people ought to have.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Elsewhere, I think, in one of your posts such imaginings of how big it all is and how small and limited we are seemed part of a counter-contraption. Like some people think we are so special and meaningful and you want to point out that we are actually small and can't imagine things. I can't see much use for that contraption, unless one wants certain specific people to stop being so full of themselves, if that's what one judges and further thinks this physical smallness in some way chips away at meaning.

Maybe, but this is how I do react [existentially] to the staggering vastness of all there is. It can elicit feelings of despair given the profound insignificane of "I" trekking dumbly from dust to dust through the "brute facticity" of an essentially meaningless universe. Or, from time to time, it can evoke a certain calmness given that you really have nothing to prove to anyone who are are basically in the same boat.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: 'I find this fascinating...'

That's different. Is there some reason you think we need to or should consider this vastness that we cannot really consider?

Here we are all basically groping about, grappling to pin down why we think and feel what we do here and now. But there are simply far, far, far too many factors in our lives going all the way back to the day that we are born, to ever imagine [realistically] we can pin it down.

The size, enormity, grandeur, and scope of all of creation is blinding, shocking, revolutionary, and everlasting. To find the center of it all, the nexus, and triangulate the ever surging infinities wraps up just a little needle in the haystack compared to the unprecedented volume of our space-time fabric. Learning, let alone comprehending the expanses of existence as we foresee it can unravel is a quest to move up into higher dimensions, because if our sciences say that there's 11 dimensions, then we could pass through the black hole, and reach inexhaustible distances with more ease.

RaptorWizard - Secret Garden of Rare Quotes viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194124RevanFailNhilusOwn https://www.youtube.com/user/RevanFailNhilusOwnmachine/celebi tesla Polarities/Extremities http://montalk.net/The Dragon Mind of Zen https://www.youtube.com/user/bodhichildLuke Skywalker http://www.thehiddenrecords.com/How many stars are there? I'm going to be the first one to see them all!The idea is to carry a wish crown, a kind of shimmering artwork or network gallery, a set of bands or chosen assignments that flips a GameBoyColor into a Will-o~the+Wisp/ectoplasm, or the whispering of the Thunder being the Oracle.The highest North is the Heaviest helmet, immersing you into all of the constellations!!Breton to Skyrim, so the Devil made multifaceted copies of himself that got progressively better along the Way! Polaris Statues have orbs that stand out from all the rest slows people down! The dark side is small compared to the Light! Lao Tzu is Yoda’s Tao.

iambiguous wrote:Still, when you think about it, there are any number of human behaviors revolving around things that, over the course of living one's life, are not necessary to sustain one's existence. Instead you embrace them simply because [for whatever reason] they have become a part of what appeals to you or interests you as an individual: sports, the arts, hobbies etc.

My point is that these things -- which I call "distractions" -- are around precisely in order to take my mind away from the hole I'm in.

Fair enough.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: It could serve to make one feel limited - now about specific inability to comprehend something - or it could be used to make one feel small - whatever that would mean when connected to feelings or ideas of meaning in one's life.

True. And from my frame of mind these various reactions are no less existential contraptions --- as I understand the meaning of dasein as a component of ones identity, ones sense of self. And, thus, that there does not appear to be a way in which any particular reaction can be embraced as one that reasonable people ought to have.

Me, neither.

Maybe, but this is how I do react [existentially] to the staggering vastness of all there is. It can elicit feelings of despair given the profound insignificane of "I" trekking dumbly from dust to dust through the "brute facticity" of an essentially meaningless universe. Or, from time to time, it can evoke a certain calmness given that you really have nothing to prove to anyone who are are basically in the same boat.

Sounds like a mixed bag as a distraction, sometimes eliciting despair, sometimes calmness. Perhaps some English literature might be better, though not Hardy.

Here we are all basically groping about, grappling to pin down why we think and feel what we do here and now. But there are simply far, far, far too many factors in our lives going all the way back to the day that we are born, to ever imagine [realistically] we can pin it down.

I can't open that link where I am, but if it refers to the ideas around what we experience being a hologram of things that are happening on the 2-d sides of the universe, it's been around for a while. It's not an ill fit with certain mystical traditions either.

We've had trouble with understanding quite a few things science seems to indicate are true. Certainly qm.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I can't open that link where I am, but if it refers to the ideas around what we experience being a hologram of things that are happening on the 2-d sides of the universe, it's been around for a while. It's not an ill fit with certain mystical traditions either.

We've had trouble with understanding quite a few things science seems to indicate are true. Certainly qm.

What hasn't been around long however are flesh and blood human beings actually able to describe what it means to exist as or in a hologram.

Thus the trouble we are having in understanding things like that is certainly embedded in this rather pressing point.

And we don't know so many things like this that it tends to utterly fascinate some more or less than it utterly flusters others.

And it's not like we will probably ever know how we ought to think and feel about it.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles